5 ms·

>Except in some specific cases (Finland, other Arctic regions with long periods of low sunlight) I'm pretty sure this cost comparison comes down firmly on the s

>Except in some specific cases (Finland, other Arctic regions with long periods of low sunlight) I'm pretty sure this cost comparison comes down firmly on the side of wind/solar/storage. Storage is the main cost barrier for 100% renewable-powered grids, but this is also an area where technological development is possible. Why the progress is possible only for Solar and storage and in your opinion not possible for nuclear? Nuclear could be cheaper if people would not be paranoid about it. What I think could happen is this new smaller reactors could be deployed in countries more rational, irrational countries will have to buy energy from the others.

AlanSE 4y ago
Small reactors are not expected to be any cheaper than traditional reactors. They are a better bet right now because the traditional reactors keep getting mothballed in developed nations, and they have some clever technical innovations, but these are not complete game changers. Each decade, nuclear builds also trend towards getting more expensive. Like it or not, it at least partially Fukushima Daiichi that killed the nuclear expansion US. The AP1000 had new missile shield requirements that was slowing it down before that happened, and then the Japan accident added even more regulation. There was an anti-nuclear chair of the regulatory commission at the time, and yes, this is fundamentally political, but it's hard to push back on these specifics.
- simion314 4y ago
  Countries will rational regulation will enjoy the nuclear progress, the others will buy from them or throw a lot of money on expensive batteries that will also cause problems with extraction, recycling, fires etc. My bet is US will use fosil fuel for a few decades still since is cheap.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Only a negligible fraction of storage will be batteries. They cost more. Only lithium, the most expensive, is fire-prone, among battery tech. The alternatives are cheaper and cause no such problems.
cycomanic 4y ago
> >Except in some specific cases (Finland, other Arctic regions with long periods of low sunlight) I'm pretty sure this cost comparison comes down firmly on the side of wind/solar/storage. Storage is the main cost barrier for 100% renewable-powered grids, but this is also an area where technological development is possible. > Why the progress is possible only for Solar and storage and in your opinion not possible for nuclear? Nuclear had more than triple the amount of time and significantly more subsidies for showing this technological scaling. > Nuclear could be cheaper if people would not be paranoid about it. People were super enthusiastic about nuclear for the first 40 years. Even after Tschernobyl nuclear opponents were largely portrait as unrealistic hippies in most countries and policies were certainly driven by people very favourable to nuclear. Even Germany one of the most nuclear sceptic countries only decided after fukushima to stop nuclear. What is the technological breakthrough that we already know about that would suddenly change the progress massively? >What I think could happen is this new smaller reactors could be deployed in countries more rational, irrational countries will have to buy energy from the others. What people tend to forget is that about 40-50% of a nuclear power plant is the same as any other thermal power plant. We generally don't build small coal plants either, the scales don't work well. The reason why wind and solar have very different scaling is because their principle of electricity generation is very different. If you have two stocks one in exponential just starting and the other being slowly growing linearly for a long time, which one would you invest in? In particular if indications are that both stocks will continue on the same curves. That's the situation we have with nuclear vs renewables.
pfdietz 4y ago
Nuclear plants are much more complex, take much longer to build, and are much less forgiving of error in construction or operation. As a result, they iterate and improve much more slowly than solar and storage, which have the property of being composed of large numbers of copies of loosely coupled elements.

AlanSE 4y ago

Small reactors are not expected to be any cheaper than traditional reactors. They are a better bet right now because the traditional reactors keep getting mothballed in developed nations, and they have some clever technical innovations, but these are not complete game changers. Each decade, nuclear builds also trend towards getting more expensive. Like it or not, it at least partially Fukushima Daiichi that killed the nuclear expansion US. The AP1000 had new missile shield requirements that was slowing it down before that happened, and then the Japan accident added even more regulation. There was an anti-nuclear chair of the regulatory commission at the time, and yes, this is fundamentally political, but it's hard to push back on these specifics.

simion314 4y ago
Countries will rational regulation will enjoy the nuclear progress, the others will buy from them or throw a lot of money on expensive batteries that will also cause problems with extraction, recycling, fires etc. My bet is US will use fosil fuel for a few decades still since is cheap.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Only a negligible fraction of storage will be batteries. They cost more. Only lithium, the most expensive, is fire-prone, among battery tech. The alternatives are cheaper and cause no such problems.

cycomanic 4y ago

> >Except in some specific cases (Finland, other Arctic regions with long periods of low sunlight) I'm pretty sure this cost comparison comes down firmly on the side of wind/solar/storage. Storage is the main cost barrier for 100% renewable-powered grids, but this is also an area where technological development is possible. > Why the progress is possible only for Solar and storage and in your opinion not possible for nuclear? Nuclear had more than triple the amount of time and significantly more subsidies for showing this technological scaling. > Nuclear could be cheaper if people would not be paranoid about it. People were super enthusiastic about nuclear for the first 40 years. Even after Tschernobyl nuclear opponents were largely portrait as unrealistic hippies in most countries and policies were certainly driven by people very favourable to nuclear. Even Germany one of the most nuclear sceptic countries only decided after fukushima to stop nuclear. What is the technological breakthrough that we already know about that would suddenly change the progress massively? >What I think could happen is this new smaller reactors could be deployed in countries more rational, irrational countries will have to buy energy from the others. What people tend to forget is that about 40-50% of a nuclear power plant is the same as any other thermal power plant. We generally don't build small coal plants either, the scales don't work well. The reason why wind and solar have very different scaling is because their principle of electricity generation is very different. If you have two stocks one in exponential just starting and the other being slowly growing linearly for a long time, which one would you invest in? In particular if indications are that both stocks will continue on the same curves. That's the situation we have with nuclear vs renewables.

pfdietz 4y ago

Nuclear plants are much more complex, take much longer to build, and are much less forgiving of error in construction or operation. As a result, they iterate and improve much more slowly than solar and storage, which have the property of being composed of large numbers of copies of loosely coupled elements.